Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

As I quoted in a previous post, it was an ex police office and now Conservative city councilor, that suggested it was part of the gay culture to wear earrings. The gay rights group quoted hadnt even taken up the issue with the police authority,
So it looks like a couple of guys have gone to the coucilor and made a few complaints.
Not a mass of gays shouting and getting angry as the language of both the article and this threads titlle would suggest.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

"Please answer the question yes or no Mr Russ" says the cunning Barrister.

Anyway, this is getting off the topic now.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Most people would answer "never have done, never will"
Are they in the wrong?

Now to put that question into the same context as the one asked in this topic, it would be something like "Do you beat your wife?"
In order to put the question asked in this topic in the context of the one you asked would be something like "gays still overreacting/looking for trouble?" or "gays overreacting/looking for trouble again?" in which case a perfectly good answer would be "they weren't in the past but I feel they are now" or "they weren't in the past and they still aren't"

Thats because they're not allowed to wear them on shift because of this rule you wally :pp
Before this rule came about, many hetrosexual PCs wore either one or two earings while on duty.
I know several

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Ah you mean someone would be unable to answer to question with a simple "yes" or "no"?

You didn't say that :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

If it's wrong for men to wear earrings then it should be wrong for women to as well. Otherwise it's discrimination pure and simple.
It's the dicrimination against men and (if they so see it, gays) that's at issue not whether earrings should be worn or not.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

And we come to the more sensible and accurate discussion of this being gender discrimination and health and safety rather than homophobic. *phew*

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

May I again refer the learned gentleman to my first post in this thread...!

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Give us the post number (really busy cleaning up after microsoft's mess here at work)

Thanks Graham

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Post #31

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...8&postcount=31

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

May I refer the learned gentleman to http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...2&postcount=67
:)

We both appear to be in agreement that this is gender descrimination, and a case for health and safety concern.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Graham & Xac in agreement - *and* it only took 145 posts - maybe world peace is possible after all .... ;)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

I'd give him a hug but you know how messy it could get if my chest hair (honest it's not a wig) got caught up in his nipple ring (think he's got one) :D

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Nope, but if you're really into that sort of thing, I can get hold of some "temporary" ones that are just loop of springy metal with rounded ends (to avoid unnecessary suffering)...

PS Thanks to Tez for posting the link :)

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Thanks for the red rep Zendawn.I've just green repped you.Perhaps I went a little overboard on my questions but heck I just wanted to understand what you were trying to say.Seeking explanations shouldn't earn you red reps should it?Sorry if I hurt your feelings.However maybe you too over reacted?

Incog.

Re: Gays overreacting/looking for trouble?
 

Your claim to be able to tell what someone is thinking or believing (whether consciously or subconsciously) based on the words they choose is flawed, and your post here shows the reason.

This is a discussion forum. It is a tradition of good debate to start off a discussion with a question that is framed in such a manner that it provokes an animated exchange of views. As you yourself say, the thread title may simply have been phrased to get a reaction. In the context of a discussion forum surely this is a good thing?

It is true that the way someone chooses to phrase something might shed some light on what they actually think about the subject, but for you to speak with such certainty about Russ' private, un-shared opinions based purely on five words in a thread title is arrogance in the extreme on your part.

With respect, it might be what's at issue for you, but it is not the issue for the people who have instigated this ban. What they have said is that they are concerned with the possible loss of respect/trustworthiness that may be caused among a section of the population if male police officers wear ear rings.

Discrimination is not an absolute crime in UK Law. It is illegal in certain circumstances only, so throwing the word at people you disagree with, as if it were some medieval curse, really proves nothing. In fact, the right to set differing dress codes is specifically enshrined in Law, so there is no ambiguity here at all. It is not discrimination, except in the narrow, dictionary-definition sense of the word, which merely means to differentiate (without any necessary positive or negative bias) between one thing and another.

Police men and women are public servants, in uniform and under oath. They accept that in the line of duty, their own perceived rights are often secondary to the needs of the job and the good of the community they serve. If by removing their ear rings they make relations with a section of the community easier, then the ear rings must come off.